Motion to Activate BIP 3

Dave raises several pivotal points in his email regarding the use of AI, particularly Language Learning Models (LLMs), in the process of creating Bitcoin Improvement Proposals (BIPs) and other documentation. He begins by challenging the notion that authors or publishers might face legal issues for employing AI-generated content, noting that lawsuits he found were primarily aimed at the companies producing AI tools rather than the end-users or creators utilizing such generated content. This distinction suggests a broader acceptance and potential legal safe harbor for developers and writers integrating AI into their workflows.

Further, Dave reflects on his personal experience from a decade ago when he volunteered to draft what eventually became BIP125. His narrative illustrates a common scenario in open-source projects: many are willing to suggest improvements but fewer step forward to implement them, possibly due to a lack of confidence or skill in writing. This anecdote underlines a significant opportunity where AI can serve as an enabler, helping developers who may be more proficient in coding than in formal writing to contribute more effectively to documentation and proposal drafting.

The mention of survivorship bias introduces an intriguing perspective on how the community perceives the success and creation of BIPs. Dave speculates that the current rate of BIP creation could potentially underrepresent the true volume of valuable proposals that never materialize due to the hurdles in articulating and documenting these ideas. By making the drafting process more accessible through AI assistance, there could be a substantial increase in both the quantity and diversity of proposals submitted for consideration.

Dave also touches upon a philosophical debate about the availability of advanced tools to open versus closed collaborators. He suggests that denying open-source contributors access to powerful AI writing tools could inadvertently create an existential threat to the ethos of open collaboration. Such tools could democratize the ability to contribute meaningful documentation and specifications, enabling a wider range of participants to engage with and enrich the project.

Lastly, Dave hints at his openness to using AI for writing BIPs or similar documents in the future, albeit with a preference for platforms that offer robust peer review mechanisms. His stance underscores a pragmatic approach to leveraging AI: embracing its capabilities while being mindful of the importance of human oversight and collaborative review in maintaining the quality and integrity of contributions to the Bitcoin ecosystem.